Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

The GIANT CompanyThe GIANT Company
VS
Harris TeeterHarris Teeter
The GIANT Company

The GIANT Company

1149 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, 17013, US

Last Update: 01/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://giantfoodstores.com/
779/1000Fair

The GIANT Company believes that no matter where or how, when meals happen, families connect, and when families connect meaningfully, good happens. Guided by its brand platform, For Today’s Table®, the omni-channel retailer proudly serves millions of neighbors across Pen...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:3,081
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Harris Teeter

Harris Teeter

701 Crestdale Drive, Matthews, 28105, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.harristeeter.com
788/1000Fair

Founded in 1960 in North Carolina, Harris Teeter has been enriching the lives of our customers and our communities for decades. Today, Harris Teeter employs 36,000 valued associates and operates more than 250 stores and 70 fuel centers in seven states and the District o...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:14,778
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
The GIANT Company

The GIANT Company

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Harris Teeter

Harris Teeter

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The GIANT Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Harris Teeter in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - The GIANT Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The GIANT Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Harris Teeter (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Harris Teeter cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
The GIANT Company

The GIANT Company

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Harris Teeter

Harris Teeter

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between The GIANT Company company and Harris Teeter company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between The GIANT Company and Harris Teeter, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between The GIANT Company and Harris Teeter, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - The GIANT Company or Harris Teeter ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - The GIANT Company or Harris Teeter ?
Between The GIANT Company and Harris Teeter, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between The GIANT Company and Harris Teeter, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56078
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains a path traversal vulnerability in MultiAgentMonitor that fails to sanitize agent IDs when building file paths. Attackers can include traversal sequences like ../ in agent IDs to read, write, or overwrite arbitrary files, enabling sensitive disclosure, denial of service, or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56077
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MultiAgentLedger component that allows attackers to access sensitive data by registering agents with duplicate IDs. Attackers can exploit the lack of agent ID uniqueness enforcement to share ledger instances and expose system prompts and conversation history between agents.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56076
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 contains a cross-origin agent execution vulnerability in the AGUI endpoint that allows remote attackers to trigger arbitrary agent execution. The POST /agui endpoint lacks authentication and hardcodes Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers, combined with Starlette's Content-Type-agnostic JSON parsing, enabling attackers to bypass CORS preflight checks via simple requests and exfiltrate sensitive agent responses including tool execution results and environment data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56075
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 4.5.128 contains an arbitrary shell command execution vulnerability where the UI modules hardcode approval_mode to auto, overriding administrator configuration from PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable. Authenticated attackers can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary shell commands via subprocess.run with shell=True, bypassing the manual approval gate and insufficient command sanitization blocklists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56074
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments, allowing subsequent execute_command calls to bypass approval prompts. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining initial approval for a benign command, then silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials via subsequent shell commands without user consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8